Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Considering that Dan has pretty much told me that we're not doing what he is teaching, I feel that I'm on solid ground agreeing with him.

Ron

Sure - and yet you're still speaking as if we're talking about the same thing...

Quote:

Ron Ragusa wrote:

Fortunately for Mary and me, Maruyama sensei spent much of his teaching time with us hammering home the idea that Aikido was first and foremost about developing mind/body coordination to realize correct feeling (what, I suppose, you folks refer to as internal power).

Quote:

Mary Eastland wrote:

I train in a way where internals are part of my aikido training.

I think that the bulk of the folks on this thread are talking about Dan-type internal training - if you agree that you're doing something else then the statements above are just confusing.

If you're using those terms to mean something else, that's fine, but it would be easier if you didn't bring them into this context without making that clear.

... We have been exposed to internal training as a regular part of our Aikido practice since we began ...

This exactly was also my convincement when I first read about internal practice on aikiweb.

Having practiced with Endo Seishiro for a couple of years, having practiced with an active member of the Tempukai from the beginning, having practiced with my teacher who, with time, taught me a little bit of the teachings of the koryū he teaches, having practiced with students of Yamaguchi sensei ... .
Alltogether about 18 years of practice then.
This does not touch your expierence of about 40 years or Marie's of 25 of course. But 18 years, including many years with daily practise, made me think to "understand where I was heading and how I was training", as Mary phrased it.

So more than once I myself wrote in discussions here on aikiweb: "I am doing internal training. It is an integral component of what I was taught from the first day on. I know what you are talking about and I'm doing it also."
I was deeply convinced of that.

After about two minutes of practicing what is called "internal training" by people who belong to the so called "IP fraction" on aikiweb, I was disproved.
To be clear: Noone told me being wrong. Noone tried to convince or persuade me. I just experienced a way of inner movement, internal work (this is how I call it in German: "innere Arbeit") that I had never experienced before. Never. With no teacher from what style of aikidō ever. (And also with no teacher of qi gong.) This was completely different.

And that is true also for the results. I grew up with push tests and what is called ki-tests in Ki Aikido. How it is done and what it does is definetly different from the method and results of internal work.
It only looks alike.

I don't want to start an argument.
And I hope to not be disrespectfull.
This is just some part of my story. Nothing more. Nothing less.

"I think that the bulk of the folks on this thread are talking about Dan-type internal training - if you agree that you're doing something else then the statements above are just confusing.

If you're using those terms to mean something else, that's fine, but it would be easier if you didn't bring them into this context without making that clear.

FWIW...

Best,

Chris"

With open discussion with anyone that wants to participate; ideas are exchanged. Our understanding of Aikido which incorporates internal strength may appeal to some.

My idea of what Dan and others like him practice is separate from Aikido technique. The way we train incorporates internal development with our understanding of the principles of Aikido. It is very interesting to us and maybe to others.

"I think that the bulk of the folks on this thread are talking about Dan-type internal training - if you agree that you're doing something else then the statements above are just confusing.

If you're using those terms to mean something else, that's fine, but it would be easier if you didn't bring them into this context without making that clear.

FWIW...

Best,

Chris"

With open discussion with anyone that wants to participate; ideas are exchanged. Our understanding of Aikido which incorporates internal strength may appeal to some.

My idea of what Dan and others like him practice is separate from Aikido technique. The way we train incorporates internal development with our understanding of the principles of Aikido. It is very interesting to us and maybe to others.

I'm not saying that anybody shouldn't participate. I never said that.

What I'm saying is that just because we both use the word "internal" or "internal strength" doesn't mean that we're talking about the same thing.

Ron stated above that he agreed that we're not talking about the same thing.

Quote:

Ron Ragusa wrote:

Considering that Dan has pretty much told me that we're not doing what he is teaching, I feel that I'm on solid ground agreeing with him.

Ron

If that's the truth, than talking about one thing in a discussion about another is confusing if everybody is using the same terms for different things. Since most of the people on the thread are talking about a Dan-type definition, it would be helpful if you clarify the differences rather than just saying "we do internals too" even though you mean something other than what other folks are talking about when they say "internals".

My idea of what Dan and others like him practice is separate from Aikido technique. The way we train incorporates internal development with our understanding of the principles of Aikido. It is very interesting to us and maybe to others.

Dan himself doesn't teach Aikido technique becuase he doesn't have, and doesn't pretend to have, the background--though lots of senior Aikido teachers have found his insights into Aikido waza extremely valuable.

My own teacher is one of several who do train the internal skills Dan promotes as part of their Aikido. The fit is very natural. You might almost think Aikido was invented to exploit these skills.

It is often stated by proponents of "IP/IT/IS" that the techniques of aikido (and presumably other styles) are unimportant; that "IP/IT/IS" operates outside of technique.

In my very limited experience, I would have to say I disagree. In my admittedly short exposure to "IP/IT/IS" I found that everything shown was technique based. It may not be what many would call a formal technique, but technique I believe it is. In my opinion, it really comes down to what distinctions the practitioner is able to make.

Any thoughts?

What do you mean by technique? I think that might help frame the discussion.

It is often stated by proponents of "IP/IT/IS" that the techniques of aikido (and presumably other styles) are unimportant; that "IP/IT/IS" operates outside of technique.

The non-Dan system of internal training that I practice requires techniques in order to foster and strengthen mind/body coordination. Those techniques can be practiced without regard to the Techniques of Aikido or any other style. Also mind/body coordination skills are applicable to a wide range of activities. The Aikido Techniques I practice may be done with or without mind and body coordinated so in that sense, you could say that the Aikido Techniques are unimportant.

Quote:

Michael Varin wrote:

In my very limited experience, I would have to say I disagree. In my admittedly short exposure to "IP/IT/IS" I found that everything shown was technique based. It may not be what many would call a formal technique, but technique I believe it is. In my opinion, it really comes down to what distinctions the practitioner is able to make.

Sounds fair enough as long as you are able to distinguish Technique from technique.

Dan himself doesn't teach Aikido technique becuase he doesn't have, and doesn't pretend to have, the background--though lots of senior Aikido teachers have found his insights into Aikido waza extremely valuable.

My own teacher is one of several who do train the internal skills Dan promotes as part of their Aikido. The fit is very natural. You might almost think Aikido was invented to exploit these skills.

I agree...however, so as not to confuse anyone...Ron and I will now refer to them as non-Dan skills.

Michael Varin wrote:It is often stated by proponents of "IP/IT/IS" that the techniques of aikido (and presumably other styles) are unimportant; that "IP/IT/IS" operates outside of technique.

No, that's not quite accurate. What is being said is that the training to develop IP and Aiki is separate from technique training. It is a completely separate methodology and set of training exercises specifically designed to develop the internal skillset... which is then applied to technique to empower it.

This is a crappy metaphor, but the closest thing I can think up on the fly -- It's kind of like building a car. The engine is built in a different part of the factory than the chassis is, using different tools wielded by a different set of technicians. Then, the engine and chassis are brought together, and the engine is installed into the chassis to power the vehicle.

I agree...however, so as not to confuse anyone...Ron and I will now refer to them as non-Dan skills.

just want to advertise my own stuffs so you might also want to refer to them as non-Phi skills as well. because Phi's internal skills involved consume large quantity of kimchi (blame Janet again), beans (so many beans so little time), cabbage, chicken feet (for luck during halloween), thousand year old eggs (999 year old is ok too, but won't be as fresh), and southern BBQ pork with the completion of pecan pie. this system of practice has no nevermind none technique. because it's all about IP about....about.....about

just want to advertise my own stuffs so you might also want to refer to them as non-Phi skills as well. because Phi's internal skills involved consume large quantity of kimchi (blame Janet again), beans (so many beans so little time), cabbage, chicken feet (for luck during halloween), thousand year old eggs (999 year old is ok too, but won't be as fresh), and southern BBQ pork with the completion of pecan pie. this system of practice has no nevermind none technique. because it's all about IP about....about.....about

I suppose the current IP/IS movement understandably generates debate, given it's still relatively young in the greater scheme of history. But pecan pie -- there is no debating the goodness of that!

Having experienced "Aiki" all I can say is that I was a fool to think any Aikido Waza I had extensive experience in expressed any kind of internal "power" in the 25+ years I have been around. Thank goodness it's something I can learn, and incorporate into Shoji Nishio's Aikido without continuing to argue over the semantics and philosophy of who is "aiki'er than thou".

WAZA yourselves out brothers and sisters...seriously. I'll just be over on the other side of the mat doing my thing. Hopefully someday I'll know enough to share it with you.

Having experienced "Aiki" all I can say is that I was a fool to think any Aikido Waza I had extensive experience in expressed any kind of internal "power" in the 25+ years I have been around. Thank goodness it's something I can learn, and incorporate into Shoji Nishio's Aikido without continuing to argue over the semantics and philosophy of who is "aiki'er than thou".

WAZA yourselves out brothers and sisters...seriously. I'll just be over on the other side of the mat doing my thing. Hopefully someday I'll know enough to share it with you.

William Hazen.

A lot of wasted years there, my friend.

Hope you find what you're looking for... and have the confidence to stand behind it!

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki

What do you mean by technique? I think that might help frame the discussion.

Uh... Have you read my posts in the thread? I even gave dictionary definitions.

Let me say this, everything I did in Hawaii was a technique. No question about it. I guess these were the body conditioning methods of "IP/IT/IS". Really, this topic isn't that complicated. If you are not prepared to recognize technique, I don't know what to say.

On a side note, if everyone who posted actually read every word of every thread that they post in (like I have always done), I think we'd be making more progress.

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki

Uh... Have you read my posts in the thread? I even gave dictionary definitions.

Let me say this, everything I did in Hawaii was a technique. No question about it. I guess these were the body conditioning methods of "IP/IT/IS". Really, this topic isn't that complicated. If you are not prepared to recognize technique, I don't know what to say.

On a side note, if everyone who posted actually read every word of every thread that they post in (like I have always done), I think we'd be making more progress.

Sure you presented definitions of the word technique, but never quite stated how you saw IS training as a technique nor defined how you see techniques in martial arts training. That leaves it open for the reader to interpret the post with whatever bias they have or infer that you may have.

I think its clear that you were not referring to waza, however the meaning of your first post is not as clear as it could be. Were you considering elements one is trying to condition to be techniques which are later applied? Were you considering conditioning exercises to be techniques? Were you considering the role of intent as a technique?

If you want to take a very broad interpretation, then everything in life may be considered a technique or application of a technique (I don't think many people would disagree with that premise at a very high level). I assume however, that you weren't looking for a semantics discussion.

Hope you find what you're looking for... and have the confidence to stand behind it!

LOL. With all due respect...thats your perspective perhaps, but not my experience. My Aikido journey continues to unfold, and as I always say to those like yourself who are searching...Remember what you're looking for...you're looking with.

[b]What is being said is that the training to develop IP and Aiki is separate from technique training. It is a completely separate methodology and set of training exercises specifically designed to develop the internal skillset... which is then applied to technique to empower it.

As one whose Aikido has involved the study both technique (and by technique I mean technique in the specific sense, in this case Aikido technique that involves throwing and immobilization) and Ki development work as distinct subsets of the overall art, I'd say that the above statement dovetails nicely with my experience; ignoring differences in terminology and training methodology.

As one whose Aikido has involved the study both technique (and by technique I mean technique in the specific sense, in this case Aikido technique that involves throwing and immobilization) and Ki development work as distinct subsets of the overall art, I'd say that the above statement dovetails nicely with my experience; ignoring differences in terminology and training methodology.

Ron

Ron,
I live on the opposite side of Mass. from you, but if I'm ever in your neck of the woods, I'd love to stop by and compare notes with you and Mary.